Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Healing and the Power of Faith

Posted on: May 11, 2009 - 1:04am

Paisley

Posts: 1933

Joined: 2008-03-13

Offline

Healing and the Power of Faith

"And, behold, a woman, which was diseased with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched the hem of his garment: for she said within herself, If I may but touch his garment, I shall be whole. But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour." Matthew 9:20-22 KJV

Can an individual's faith really lead to healing? The unbeliever says "no." But the scientific evidence says otherwise. Clinical studies have demonstrated that positive belief can lead to healing. It's called the placebo effect. IOW, if you believe a treatment will work, then it is more likely to actually work. Conversely, negative belief or skepticism can lead to harmful effects. This is known as the nocebo effect. Both the placebo effect and the nocebo effect are well known in medicine.

The placebo (typically a sugar pill) has proven successful in a variety of illnesses or disorders - especially in managing pain, treating ulcers and clinical depression.

Quote:

Placebo analgesia is more likely to work the more severe the pain[122] It can be effective: one study found for postoperative pain following the extraction of the third molar, that a saline injected while telling the patient it was a powerful painkiller was as potent as a 6–8 mg dose of morphine.[123]

The placebo proved to be almost as effective as the drug "cimetidine" in treating gastric or duodenal ulcers.

Quote:

A meta-study of 31 placebo-controlled trials of the gastric acid secretion inhibitor drug Cimetidine in the treatment of gastric or duodenal ulcers found that placebo treatments, in many cases, were as effective as active drugs: of the 1692 patients treated in the 31 trials, 76% of the 916 treated with the drug were "healed", and 48% of the 776 treated with placebo were "healed".[132]

Okay. Would an individual who believes without any evidence whatsover (as you are inclined to say) yield the same results as an individual who believes only with evidence?

Are you seriously suggesting that any person in those trials never ever had a real positive and effective experience with doctors and medicine ?

Sorry, but I am not about to fall prey to evasive tactics. Answer the question!

Anonymouse wrote:

Paisley wrote:

If not, why not?

For a placebo-effect to be triggered, there would always have to be prior evidence of the effectiveness of doctors and medicine. You're asking me to imagine someone who believes in doctors and medicine without ever having had a real and positive experience with either ? Why would that person believe and trust if he lacked the evidence? It just makes no sense at all. He simply wouldn't have the motivation to do so.

Yeah, it doesn't make any sense at all. But you're making my point - namely, how is possible to "believe without any evidence?" Yet, you are arguing that those who seek out religious healers believe and trust them without any evidence whatsoever. How is that possible? And even if it is possible, why does it make it a difference? After all, all that it is required (to use your own words) is to "believe and trust."

Anonymouse wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Also, what proof or evidence does the subject have that the placebo (e.g. an inert sugar pill) will work?

He has his prior experience with the very real effectiveness of doctors and medicine. That's all that's needed to trigger the conditioned response we call the placebo efffect.

Imagine, if you will, that the doctor told the patient that "I am giving you nothing more than an inert sugar pill." Do you think the placebo would have the same effect? Why or why not?

Anonymouse wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Finally, please explain to me how one believes without any evidence whatsoever. How does that work exactly?

No, it isn't your question. It's mine. You're the one asserting that faith is "belief without evidence." But now you appear to be backpedaling. Apparently, you do not really believe that it is possible to "believe without evidence." IOW, you have just dismantled your own argument. This debate is over.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead

So, what is the condition that must be met in order for the placebo to yield positive results?

The patient would have to have experienced being effectively treated by doctors and medicine.

Sorry, but employing these evasive tactics is not fooling anyone. We both know that it requires BELIEF.

Anonymouse wrote:

If there are people who believe in the power of a witch-doctor, then they do so because he gets real results.

Exactly! And if the placebo effect works for medical doctors, then there is every reason to believe that witch-doctors and faith healers achieve similar results for the very same reason. In fact, an argument can be made that faith healers may be able to achieve better results because they are more skillful at eliciting stronger faith.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead

Well stated. It doesn't to pertain to the argument that I made in the OP.

Really? Because you're making an argument with (what I believe to be) a flawed premise. If you can't even speak for the validity of your example, as all your other attempts to provide evidence have been refuted, how can you expect anyone to take your argument seriously?

Yeah, what's the flaw premise?

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead

Neither have you. You're arguing that faith heals, but all your data supports is that the placebo-effect exists.

This debate is over. You cannot debate an issue with an individual who doesn't have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge when a point has been made. The bottom line is that the placebo effect works based solely on the subject's belief in the effectiveness of the treatment (and I have cited sources to support this). Saying that this does not entail faith does not change the reality of the fact.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead

Neither have you. You're arguing that faith heals, but all your data supports is that the placebo-effect exists.

This debate is over. You cannot debate an issue with an individual who doesn't have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge when a point has been made. The bottom line is that the placebo effect works based solely on the subject's belief in the effectiveness of the treatment (and I have cited sources to support this). Saying that this does not entail faith does not change the reality of the fact.

Okay. Would an individual who believes without any evidence whatsover (as you are inclined to say) yield the same results as an individual who believes only with evidence?

Are you seriously suggesting that any person in those trials never ever had a real positive and effective experience with doctors and medicine ?

Sorry, but I am not about to fall prey to evasive tactics. Answer the question!

Anonymouse wrote:

Paisley wrote:

If not, why not?

For a placebo-effect to be triggered, there would always have to be prior evidence of the effectiveness of doctors and medicine. You're asking me to imagine someone who believes in doctors and medicine without ever having had a real and positive experience with either ? Why would that person believe and trust if he lacked the evidence? It just makes no sense at all. He simply wouldn't have the motivation to do so.

Yeah, it doesn't make any sense at all. But you're making my point - namely, how is possible to "believe without any evidence?" Yet, you are arguing that those who seek out religious healers believe and trust them without any evidence whatsoever. How is that possible? And even if it is possible, why does it make it a difference? After all, all that it is required (to use your own words) is to "believe and trust."

Anonymouse wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Also, what proof or evidence does the subject have that the placebo (e.g. an inert sugar pill) will work?

He has his prior experience with the very real effectiveness of doctors and medicine. That's all that's needed to trigger the conditioned response we call the placebo efffect.

Imagine, if you will, that the doctor told the patient that "I am giving you nothing more than an inert sugar pill." Do you think the placebo would have the same effect? Why or why not?

Anonymouse wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Finally, please explain to me how one believes without any evidence whatsoever. How does that work exactly?

No, it isn't your question. It's mine. You're the one asserting that faith is "belief without evidence." But now you appear to be backpedaling. Apparently, you do not really believe that it is possible to "believe without evidence." IOW, you have just dismantled your own argument. This debate is over.

Excuse me, but did you just say that you agreeing with my argument leads to me dismantling my argument ? What the hell are you even talking about now ???

Sorry, but employing these evasive tactics is not fooling anyone. We both know that it requires BELIEF.

Belief based on evidence, yes. Are you just agreeing with me again ?

Paisley wrote:

Exactly! And if the placebo effect works for medical doctors, then there is every reason to believe that witch-doctors and faith healers achieve similar results for the very same reason. In fact, an argument can be made that faith healers may be able to achieve better results because they are more skillful at eliciting stronger faith.

The whole argument here was simply that you can't call it faith, if the placebo effect is triggered by belief based on evidence. So your whole counter argument is basically : "I don't care, I'm going to call it faith anyway" ?

This debate is over. You cannot debate an issue with an individual who doesn't have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge when a point has been made.

We agree again, it seems, albeit for different reasons.

My argument was that you are not qualified to interpret medical data. You proved that yet again in the post you're replying to here now, only you've conveniently deleted and ignored that here.

So where's your counter-argument ? How could it possibly be not relevant to your OP, since it consists of nothing but your interpretation of medical data ?

Then there was also the fact that you yourself aren't buying what you're sellling. How can it not be relevant that you don't believe your own OP ?

Counter-argument ?

And my argument that the word "faith" , meaning "belief without evidence", can't be used in a definition of the placebo-effect, is apparently not valid because you agreeing with it leads to me dismantling it ????

I mean, wtf ?

Paisley wrote:

The bottom line is that the placebo effect works based solely on the subject's belief in the effectiveness of the treatment

Oh, now you no longer believe that it heals ? And "faith" is gone too ? You're just jerking people around, aren't you ?

Paisley wrote:

(and I have cited sources to support this).

You've cited sources that support the existence of the placebo-effect. That's all that happened. It almost looks as if we agree on that too.

Paisley wrote:

Saying that this does not entail faith does not change the reality of the fact.

Wait, so now you don't even mind that "faith" isn't in there anymore ???? And you say your point's been made ?????

Of course he won't admit that he's shifted his argument; that he's suddenly arguing for 'belief in the effectiveness of the treatment' which is different from religious faith that heals; nor that he's moved away from his OP and early comments, where he basically said 'faith heals' over and over, to a position of 'faith heals, but faith healers are bunk,' then to 'it's the effectiveness of the treatment.'

He's now contradicting himself, which means we're coming to the end of another lap around the Paisley merry-go-round. Next up: further contradictions and attempted character slander, as well as insinuations or outright statements of denial of others' comprehension of WIKIPEDIA LINKS (!!!!!!) despite the fact that there are several actual scientists and science fanatics who can think and argue rings around our resident old-school (ancient Greek) dualist Paisley on the boards.

ClockCat is right: We obviously didn't watch the video.

OrdinaryClay wrote:

If you don't believe your non-belief then you don't believe and you must not be an atheist.

Of course he won't admit that he's shifted his argument; that he's suddenly arguing for 'belief in the effectiveness of the treatment' which is different from religious faith that heals; nor that he's moved away from his OP and early comments, where he basically said 'faith heals' over and over, to a position of 'faith heals, but faith healers are bunk,' then to 'it's the effectiveness of the treatment.'

He's now contradicting himself, which means we're coming to the end of another lap around the Paisley merry-go-round. Next up: further contradictions and attempted character slander, as well as insinuations or outright statements of denial of others' comprehension of WIKIPEDIA LINKS (!!!!!!) despite the fact that there are several actual scientists and science fanatics who can think and argue rings around our resident old-school (ancient Greek) dualist Paisley on the boards.

ClockCat is right: We obviously didn't watch the video.

Sorry but what is next is a new thread about either faith and atheists or consciousness and materialists. This one will be more or less abandoned because paisley will believe that he has either A) won, B) no one has the intellectual honesty (oh the irony) to debate him properly about this topic anymore.

Well stated. It doesn't to pertain to the argument that I made in the OP.

Really? Because you're making an argument with (what I believe to be) a flawed premise. If you can't even speak for the validity of your example, as all your other attempts to provide evidence have been refuted, how can you expect anyone to take your argument seriously?

Yeah, what's the flaw premise?

Read my first post. You can't even speak for the validity of your example, and the modern medical examples have been shown (despite your inability to admit it) to be disingenuous. In fact, the examples you gave don't pertain to the biblical verse you reference.

So, how does any of this relate to the original parable?

and

Why should we take that parable seriously?

"Do not, as some ungracious pastors do, show me the steep and thorny way to heaven. Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine, himself the primrose path of dalliance treads. And recks not his own rede."

I read your first post. It didn't respond to the argument I made in the OP of this thread.

cervello_marcio wrote:

You can't even speak for the validity of your example, and the modern medical examples have been shown (despite your inability to admit it) to be disingenuous.

In fact, the examples you gave don't pertain to the biblical verse you reference.

So, how does any of this relate to the original parable?

and

Why should we take that parable seriously?

It wasn't a parable, but a narrative. And the relationship between the biblical narrative and the argument I made in the OP is fairly straight-forward: One's faith can lead to healing. And I supported this claim by providing the scientific evidence for the healing power of belief in the form of the placebo effect.

The only one here being disingenuous is you and your fellow atheists who don't have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge this fact.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead

I read your first post. It didn't respond to the argument I made in the OP of this thread.

cervello_marcio wrote:

You can't even speak for the validity of your example, and the modern medical examples have been shown (despite your inability to admit it) to be disingenuous.

In fact, the examples you gave don't pertain to the biblical verse you reference.

So, how does any of this relate to the original parable?

and

Why should we take that parable seriously?

It wasn't a parable, but a narrative. And the relationship between the biblical narrative and the argument I made in the OP is fairly straight-forward: One's faith can lead to healing. And I supported this claim by providing the scientific evidence for the healing power of belief in the form of the placebo effect.

The only one here being disingenuous is you and your fellow atheists who don't have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge this fact.

Which was it in the story, belief or faith? You've been told the difference numerous times. Have you figured it out yet?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

If your life was on the line, would you choose faith healing if a viable conventional treatment was available, yes or no ?

Go ahead and answer "yes". Lie for Jesus, you know he wants you to. Or let's have some honesty from you, just for novelty's sake.

Whatever you answer, or even if you just dodge it, your game is over. This is solid proof that your faith is a sham, nothing but pretense. This also means that each and every one of your 1000+ posts is nothing but fiction. Boring, repetitive fiction, with only your arrogance providing occasional entertainment.

You're done. You have nothing to hide behind anymore.

I guess all you have to hope for now, is for some poor sap to come along who hasn't heard of you yet.

It wasn't a parable, but a narrative. And the relationship between the biblical narrative and the argument I made in the OP is fairly straight-forward: One's faith can lead to healing. And I supported this claim by providing the scientific evidence for the healing power of belief in the form of the placebo effect.

The only one here being disingenuous is you and your fellow atheists who don't have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge this fact.

Which was it in the story, belief or faith? You've been told the difference numerous times. Have you figured it out yet?

This is your argument: "The placebo effect is based not on faith, but on belief." Somehow, in your twisted and distorted mind, you believe that this semantical ploy changes the facts. Newsflash: It doesn't. It only reveals that you lack the intellectual honesty (and humility) to acknowledge when a point has been made. No further commentary is necessary.

Of course he won't admit that he's shifted his argument; that he's suddenly arguing for 'belief in the effectiveness of the treatment' which is different from religious faith that heals;

I never said that "religious" faith heals. That's your qualification. And why the qualifier? Answer: Because faith means (on the atheist's view only) "belief without evidence." Even if the patient believes without any evidence whatsoever (and no one here has been able to provide a rationale how this is possible), then it doesn't change anything. The placebo would be effective. Believing with or without evidence is not the critical factor. The critical factor is simply believing. How the belief is engendered is irrelevant.

Incidentally, this is your first attempt at making some kind of argument instead of just flinging snide remarks. Granted, it was a lame argument. But nevertheless it was some kind of argument. This is a start.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead

It wasn't a parable, but a narrative. And the relationship between the biblical narrative and the argument I made in the OP is fairly straight-forward: One's faith can lead to healing. And I supported this claim by providing the scientific evidence for the healing power of belief in the form of the placebo effect.

The only one here being disingenuous is you and your fellow atheists who don't have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge this fact.

Which was it in the story, belief or faith? You've been told the difference numerous times. Have you figured it out yet?

This is your argument: "The placebo effect is based not on faith, but on belief." Somehow, in your twisted and distorted mind, you believe that this semantical ploy changes the facts. Newsflash: It doesn't. It only reveals that you lack the intellectual honesty (and humility) to acknowledge when a point has been made. No further commentary is necessary.

My argument is "The woman with an issue of blood was healed by a combination of an opinion based on evidence that she considered reliable and the biochemical activity that resulted from acting on that evidence."

Your argunet is "The placebo effect works solely because of trusting an opinion without or in spite of evidence to the contrary."

See the difference yet or do you wish to keep being dishonest?

Why do you go with a dictionary definition? Perhaps because the Biblical one makes no sense? "The substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen" proves problematic for you, eh?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

I never said that "religious" faith heals. That's your qualification. And why the qualifier? Answer: Because faith means (on the atheist's view only) "belief without evidence." Even if the patient believes without any evidence whatsoever (and no one here has been able to provide a rationale how this is possible), then it doesn't change anything. The placebo would be effective. Believing with or without evidence is not the critical factor. The critical factor is simply believing. How the belief is engendered is irrelevant.

Incidentally, this is your first attempt at making some kind of argument instead of just flinging snide remarks. Granted, it was a lame argument. But nevertheless it was some kind of argument. This is a start.

That's the point Paisley, there can be no belief without evidence. It would be more accurate to describe faith as something that is believed with especially strong conviction under the impression that there is evidence to support such a belief even though there is actually none. Faith is a subset of belief. Any conviction of faith IS a belief, blunt fact. I can't find a dictionary where they're not listed as synonyms.

An effective argument of "the placebo effect heals because of faith" would be if you could slipped a depressed or injured person a sugar pill without him ever noticing and him miraculously being cured. But even then it's easy to see why the term faith doesn't even make sense under the "belief without evidence definition", my previous description matches more closely imo.

I find it interesting that throughout all of this that you haven't really addressed the scientific underpinnings of what you're saying. Are all emotions a form of faith then since beliefs of all kinds can elicit biochemical responses? Do you have any evidence for a belief that is detached from memory?

It wasn't a parable, but a narrative. And the relationship between the biblical narrative and the argument I made in the OP is fairly straight-forward: One's faith can lead to healing. And I supported this claim by providing the scientific evidence for the healing power of belief in the form of the placebo effect.

The only one here being disingenuous is you and your fellow atheists who don't have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge this fact.

Prove it. The burden is on you to prove it, not on us to disprove it. The placebo effect does not prove this, and I think you're using a dishonest example from the bible because you can't speak for its validity. And don't even try to say this isn't about "religious faith" because you use an example from the bible to introduce the topic of your post. We're not being intellectually dishonest, you're covering your ears and going "la la la la la" every time someone has a point to make that deflates your idea.

"Do not, as some ungracious pastors do, show me the steep and thorny way to heaven. Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine, himself the primrose path of dalliance treads. And recks not his own rede."

I know that in the US, people are getting used to the religious, scribbling their little notes in scientific texts, hoping some of the respect and achievements will rub off on them, so you guys may be a little desensitized to this, but to me, this is kind of like watching a monkey try to give a university lecture, and then getting dirty looks when I don't take it seriously.

So I was just wondering : Since his OP is nothing but quotes from studies aimed at professionals in three different specialised fields of medicine, and his own personal conclusion tagged on, why exactly are we taking him seriously ? I'm getting tired of saying this, but he doesn't have the qualifications to draw any kind of conclusion from any kind of medical data whatsoever.

Shouldn't it just stop there ?

Why cut him that much slack ? What's the use of that ? How does that even make sense ?

Or am I the only one who took him seriously, and is everyone else just having a laugh ?

I know that in the US, people are getting used to the religious, scribbling their little notes in scientific texts, hoping some of the respect and achievements will rub off on them, so you guys may be a little desensitized to this, but to me, this is kind of like watching a monkey try to give a university lecture, and then getting dirty looks when I don't take it seriously.

So I was just wondering : Since his OP is nothing but quotes from studies aimed at professionals in three different specialised fields of medicine, and his own personal conclusion tagged on, why exactly are we taking him seriously ? I'm getting tired of saying this, but he doesn't have the qualifications to draw any kind of conclusion from any kind of medical data whatsoever.

Shouldn't it just stop there ?

Why cut him that much slack ? What's the use of that ? How does that even make sense ?

Or am I the only one who took him seriously, and is everyone else just having a laugh ?

Hey I stopped taking him seriously a while ago when he refused to define consciousness (his definition was conscious aware, and if you didn't understand what the meant paisley stated you didn't have the intelligence enough to debate him), and of course when he stated that he didn't care for scientific evidence, his opinion is what matter more. Paisley only acknowledges scientific evidence/studies if it agrees with his world view, if it is contrary then he denies they exist, or they are wrong and his OPINION is right. Paisley is one of the most intellectually dishonest people I have met, and he can't debate worth shit half the time.

Hey I stopped taking him seriously a while ago when he refused to define consciousness (his definition was conscious aware, and if you didn't understand what the meant paisley stated you didn't have the intelligence enough to debate him), and of course when he stated that he didn't care for scientific evidence, his opinion is what matter more. Paisley only acknowledges scientific evidence/studies if it agrees with his world view, if it is contrary then he denies they exist, or they are wrong and his OPINION is right. Paisley is one of the most intellectually dishonest people I have met, and he can't debate worth shit half the time.

Thanks for telling me. I almost thought it was just me. I think I saw him try that "consciousness" word game in another thread just now, and I'm glad people don't let him get away with it.

I'm going to keep rubbing his nose in it too. He's made it far too easy. He's piled up his stupidities too high to ignore, imo. It's almost too easy to prove him wrong.

Main Entry: placebo effect Function: noun: improvement in the condition of a patient that occurs in response to treatment but cannot be considered due to the specific treatment used

Interesting. No "faith". No "heals". No "cures". No "belief".

This proves he went quote-mining. The placebo-effect is a medical term. He had no excuse whatsoever not to look it up in a medical dictionary. Next time he calls somebody else "dishonest", I suggest we lol.